Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Ravinder Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3443 of 2023 & CM APPL. 13285 of 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Mandamus - Benefits of ACPs/MACPs Scheme - The court directed the respondents to decide the representation within eight weeks, in line with judgments from the court, the Supreme Court, and the Kerala High Court, and communicate the decision to the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writs of mandamus to grant them the benefits of ACPs/MACPs Scheme and upgrade their pay scale, and were aggrieved by a previous order. The respondents informed that the matter was pending consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to decide the representation within eight weeks, in line with relevant judgments, and communicate the decision to the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
Issues: The main issue was the grant of benefits of ACPs/MACPs Scheme and pay scale upgrade to the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on relevant judgments from the court, the Supreme Court, and the Kerala High Court to direct the respondents to decide the representation within eight weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation within eight weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners and similarly situated persons.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs:
"a.) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order/direction of the similar nature whereby directing the Respondents to grant the benefits of ACPs/MACPs Scheme to the Petitioners with effect from the elate of reporting for Basic Recruit Training;
b.) Issues writ of mandamus or any other writ/order/direction of the similar nature whereby directing the Respondents to upgrade the pay scale as per the benefits of ACPs/MACPs Scheme to the Petitioners with effect from the date of reporting for Basic Recruit Training;
c.) Issue directions of a similar nature as issued by this Hon'ble Court, whereby this Hon'ble Court granted the benefits of the original ACPs/MACPs Scheme to the similarly situated persons as was extended by the respondents in view of the orders made by this Hon'ble Court from time to time."
2. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 08.12.2022, the petitioners made the Representation dated 15.12.2022.
3. In response to the said representation, the respondents vide Communicated dated 02.01.2023 informed that the matter is already pending consideration.
4. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to decide the Representation dated 15.12.2022 within eight weeks from today, not only qua the petitioners herein, but also qua all the similarly situated persons.
5. It is made clear that the said Representation dated 15.12.2022 be decided in view of the judgements rendered by this Court, the Supreme Court and the Kerala High in the following cases:
(i) K. Bangaru Naidu & Ors. vs. Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr., W.P.(C) 5799/2015 decided on 07.12.2015,
(ii) Satish Kumar & Ors. vs. Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., W.P.(C) 3461/2016 decided on 26.04.2026,
(iii) Bablu Mallick & Anr. vs. Directorate General, Border Security Force & Ors., W.P.(C) 7011/2015, decided on
(iv) Director General Border Security Force & Ors. vs. Bablu Mallick & Anr., SLP (C) Diary No. 581/2021 decided on 03.05.2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(v) Shine S. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 17277/2021 decided on 23.09.2021 by the Kerala High Court.
(vi) Director General Border Security Force & Ors. vs. Bablu Mallick & Anr., Review Petition in SLP (C) 6738/2021 decided on 22.09.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons in writing with a reasoned order within one week thereafter.
7. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.
8. Needless to state that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of timely decision-making by the respondent authority in matters related to the MACP scheme.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus, emphasizing the need for timely decisions on representations made by petitioners.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the ACP Scheme and the reliance on a previous Supreme Court decision.
The court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations and the option for petitioners to challenge decisions if still aggrieved.
Employees are entitled to timely resolution of representations regarding service benefits, and failure to respond allows for judicial intervention to ensure compliance.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus and the requirement for reasoned orders within a specified timeframe.
The court clarified that departmental examination requirements do not apply to ACP benefits under the applicable rules.
The main legal point established is the court's power to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the petition as a representation and decide within a specified timeframe.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
